header-logo header-logo

Nobody's fault

16 March 2007 / Andrew Greensmith
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Opinion , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Removing fault from the divorce process would dignify proceedings, says Andrew Greensmith

Resolution has always been supportive of the institution of marriage. The association addressed the concept of no fault divorce in its response to the government’s initiative in the early 90s, when it published a green paper in 1993 entitled Looking to the Future—Mediation and the Ground for Divorce. Resolution believes the time is right for the subject to be debated again. Hopefully, this time change will be effected.

To understand why it is a natural progression to move to a no fault divorce, and to see why such a move does not undermine marriage, we need to consider what purpose the divorce process is intended to serve.

When two people marry they are making a public statement that they wish to be recognised as a married couple and, usually, that they wish to live together as an ‘item’. When they divorce, they are signalling to the world that their marriage has broken down and that they wish, once again, to be recognised

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The threat of section 21 ‘no fault’ eviction was banished this week, after the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 passed into law
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
back-to-top-scroll